Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   no no no mister fishbed (fishbed@squawk.mytransponder.com)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2023 13:54:47 JST no no no mister fishbed

   • mushroom soup

   @mushroom_soup context is sadly always nagging.

   The article in question was about "randomly selected leaders and choosing average citizens to lead instead of politicians using a sort of lottery system".

   So they're not fascist, just really fucking stupid

   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 13-Nov-2023 13:54:47 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • mushroom soup
     @Fishbed @mushroom_soup sortition
     
     it has some adherents from the pre-WEF times. i've been advocating it for judge roles. its very good at preventing clowning (candidates can't win via superpacs and favoritism)
     
     in the USA the senate wasn't supposed to be democratic, but the house of representatives is. i'd probably keep something like that original model--have one house that is randomly rolled in to power, and the other can be voted or appointed, to keep a balance of power between elites and normal dudes.
     
     workers having full control is bad (communism) and elites having full control is bad (crony capitalism, authoritarianism.) they individually lack perspective. which is why i think the original US model of opposing but differently formed houses was good, before we for some reason made them both elected positions (despite the fact they were intentionally not, for very specific reasons.)